NASA has released a media advisory today indicating that there will be a major announcement today at 16:00 EDT (20:00 UTC) about commercial crew transportation to the International Space Station. The graphic in their announcement includes the apparently new buzzphrase: "Launch America". The announcement will be made from Kennedy Space Center.
Commence wild speculation over CST-100, Dragon, etc.
[Update] The announcement: American Companies Selected to Return Astronaut Launches to American Soil
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
NASA to Announce Crew Transport Plan for ISS
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 36 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @07:26PM
Boeing is going to beat out SpaceX for the contract. [washingtonpost.com]
I'm bummed.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @07:28PM
More here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2014/09/16/reports-boeing-to-beat-out-spacex-for-nasa-contract-thanks-to-jeff-bezos/ [forbes.com]
(Score: 4, Informative) by physicsmajor on Tuesday September 16 2014, @08:24PM
Per the actual announcement on the NASA blog, they went with Boeing AND SpaceX.
http://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2014/09/16/bolden-competition-made-it-tough-choice-but-the-right-choice-boeing-and-spacex-to-build-new-spacecraft/ [nasa.gov]
(Score: 5, Interesting) by VLM on Tuesday September 16 2014, @08:37PM
Lots of flag waving "AMERICAN" in that press release, LOL.
The SpaceX project is all american made, including some interesting KISS-style engines. The whole thing is KISS theme. Not talking about the band either. They've got flying hardware and need some certification and testing and off they go.
The Boeing CST-100 is a vaporware capsule (afaik) and its made to sit on top of numerous boosters, likely the first is the atlas5 with RUSSIAN RUSSIAN RUSSIAN engines. Just thought I'd bring that up. Comically (sorta) you could boost a CST-100 capsule on top of a falcon-9 although why you'd use the boeing product instead of the spacex dragon capsule is mysterious.
My guess is Boeing was going to get the whole thing in the usual back room deal corruption stuff despite being 100% composed of vapor, but they don't have a booster than doesn't use Russian engines, so they kinda had ta throw spacex a bone. Go ahead boeing, build your capsule for twice what the entire spacex project will cost, when russia cuts off our supply of RD180s for the Atlas booster, they can just put the gold plated CST100 on top of a falcon9 for launch...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by gman003 on Tuesday September 16 2014, @10:09PM
I think the more likely answer is "Boeing has enough clout on the Hill that if we cut them out we're fucked bipartisanly, but SpaceX is so cheap we can go with both, then cut out Boeing once they miss a milestone and still come in on budget".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @07:52PM
Is there no sound on the stream?
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html [nasa.gov]
(Score: 4, Funny) by DECbot on Tuesday September 16 2014, @09:32PM
sudo apt-get purge pulseaudio
fixed that for you.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Wednesday September 17 2014, @02:44AM
Mod parent up +1 insightfully funny
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday September 16 2014, @07:53PM
Its already leaked out that they are going with Boeing, who won't have their capsule ready for at least two years.
They've once again snubbed SpaceX, who originally intended to carry crew in Dragon(1) but have since announced Dragon 2 in May, with no stated availability date.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by gman003 on Tuesday September 16 2014, @07:56PM
The articles I've seen have been "experts think NASA will pick Boeing", not "insiders know NASA has picked Boeing". I'm still hopeful. For the next four minutes or so.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @08:05PM
Washpost quotes an anonymous official.
(Score: 4, Informative) by paulej72 on Tuesday September 16 2014, @08:21PM
Team Leader for SN Development
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday September 16 2014, @09:25PM
He sure took a lot of words to say very little. Its not at all clear who will do what or when.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by SlimmPickens on Tuesday September 16 2014, @09:58PM
It looks to be a kind of American version of the Haka [youtube.com]
(Score: 4, Informative) by AndyTheAbsurd on Tuesday September 16 2014, @08:23PM
The actual announcement says Boeing AND SpaceX will carry crew to ISS.
http://blogs.nasa.gov/bolden/2014/09/16/american-companies-selected-to-return-astronaut-launches-to-american-soil/ [nasa.gov]
Please note my username before responding. You may have been trolled.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @11:22PM
SpaceX does not need as much money as Boeing to develop their system. SpaceX could be the big winner here. They got their contract. And if Boeing fails, SpaceX is the only game in town that actually has a capsule.
Think about it,
* Space X has a proven rocket, Boeing too
* Space X capsule *already flown* to ISS, not Boeing
* Space X can test their capsule for return too, under their current contract of resupplies - not Boeing
* Space X has the cheapest rockets and want to have re-usable rockets.
Space X has something. Their contract is almost guaranteed at this point. Boeing needs to deliver, or they will not see but a fraction of the amount promised.
Keep in mind that NASA does not want a sole source company to dictate them terms in the future. That is why they are willing to spend more on Boeing to at least pretend that there is competition. The 3rd competitor didn't deliver much yet, hence they were dropped.
So, Space X is the big winner, even if they get less money in the initial contract.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @08:07PM
There are two obvious, highly speculative explanations for "Launch America". They both stem from the US's lackluster and short-sighted foreign policy. Russia is not a country that simply submits to sanctions and force. It has more than one way to retaliate against the West's sanctions due to its invasion of the Ukraine.
As Al Jazeera notes [aljazeera.com],
And, to quote the Moscow Times [themoscowtimes.com]:
It seemed to Putin that it was time to put the hurt on the Ukraine. But, as these things go, who can blame Russia? The Ukraine is a sitting duck. It's weak, and it's feeble.
-- LentilSoupIsMentalFruit [soylentnews.org]
(Karma cannot stop me.)
(Score: 2) by bucc5062 on Tuesday September 16 2014, @08:24PM
If this was the case than putting contracts with a organization that seems currently reliant on Russian engines and won't have a viable program in place for two years seems short sighted and...oh I get it, political.
Given the success of SpaceX and following them the next gen of commercial space companies the smarter and longer term approach would be to either award to SpaceX or do something really crazy and say, who ever can get a manned capsule to the ISS in the shortest time get's the prize.
The more things change, the more they look the same
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @08:35PM
> Or do something really crazy and say, who ever can get a manned capsule to the ISS in the shortest time get's the prize.
Like a new Space X Prize!
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday September 16 2014, @08:43PM
"who ever can get a manned capsule to the ISS in the shortest time get's the prize."
This would be a little unfair, since there's a Dragon launch in four days and the boeing cst100 is vaporous, although sorta under development for about a decade now.
The paperwork isn't official for the Dragon to be man rated, but I'm sure some volunteer would put on a suit and go for it anyway.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @10:41PM
> The paperwork isn't official for the Dragon to be man rated, but I'm sure some volunteer would put on a suit and go for it anyway.
And if there is a fuck-up and he dies that is the end for SpaceX.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday September 17 2014, @02:15PM
Thats why you do the stowaway thing. Assuming you have trustworthy space suit, etc. If all goes well they open the hatch and elon musk says hi and surprises the absolute hell out of everyone. Or dies in a fireball over the ocean if the launch doesn't go well and nobody officially knows why he disappeared. I suggested this on HN and they got all butthurt, no sense of adventure or humor over there.
Rather than their CEO they should send up a death row inmate. Then if he escapes and kills the station crew we've got a century of hollywood horror movies, and if the launch fails, well, whatever he was toast anyway. Maybe sending prisoners would turn the ISS into australia 2.0. G'day mate want a can of fosters and look out for the dropbears that leap onto you from the trees, and don't hit any bloody 'roos on the flight up?
(Score: 4, Informative) by frojack on Tuesday September 16 2014, @09:21PM
Of course the only reason the US buys the RD-180s from Russia is they are so cheap, some speculate they are actually sold below cost, just to keep the US dependent for precisely this type of situation.
The US is licensed to manufacture that engine in house, (has been since day one, and has all the plans and process documentation already in house) and there is nothing particularly hard about doing that other than the tooling that the Russians have already built. That might take a while to build, molds, CNC setups, etc. But there is nothing special about the metallurgy involved. No unobtanium used.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Tuesday September 16 2014, @09:44PM
"nothing particularly hard about doing that"
Time. Not just to make, but testing subassemblies and then whole engines. Assuming we don't mess something up.
You'd be surprised how hard it is to move a mere automobile assembly line from one facility to another in the same company, much less rocket engines around the world.
And for political reasons they can wait until a week before we man rate and then dump engines on the market "forcing" us to flush all the expenditure down the drain. Well, maybe we wouldn't be that stupid.... um... well...
There's just something uniquely Russian about their unnatural association with their machinery, its always ugly and low performance and utterly freaking indestructible. Doesn't matter if its their main battle rifles or radios or rocket engines, its just a Russian thing to always make simple heavy indestructible beasts. Even if you donno anything about rocket science, just take a wild guess... Russian engine? Yeah, I'm betting its a heavy, low Isp, utterly reliable and indestructible beast of an engine, isn't it? Like a flying AK-47 or something.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday September 17 2014, @12:01AM
Agreed, the problem would be keeping the engineers from tweaking just a little here and just a scosch there and pretty soon you've got cost overrun and 3 year delay.
Need to equip some bean counters with said AK-47, and license to severely wound the first engineer suggesting deviation from the existing delivered design.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Wednesday September 17 2014, @02:55AM
Need to equip some bean counters with said AK-47
Just move the R&D/assembly to Guantanamo. Problem solved.
Giving someone an AK-47 would be more difficult, considering that the reliable ones are Russian and these are sanctioned currently (forever?).
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday September 17 2014, @03:10AM
Don't need the reliable ones, we only want to wound.
BSides, from what I hear they may not be accurate, but they are all pretty reliable.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by evilviper on Wednesday September 17 2014, @03:51AM
And most importantly, it's Lockheed-Martin that's on the hook for fulfilling their contract and supplying RD-180 engines. Unfortunately, crony capitalism means the US government decided that the taxpayer should pay to help Lockheed develop the facilities to produce the RD-180s in-house, that they were already contractually obligated to deliver, and had ample opportunity to produce in-house long before now.
Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @11:40PM
It seemed to Putin that it was time to put the hurt on the Ukraine. But, as these things go, who can blame Russia? The Ukraine is a sitting duck. It's weak, and it's feeble.
Ukraine is very strategic to Russia. You might as well say "Why is US so butthurt over communist Cuba?". Ukraine's democratic government being overthrown 2x by pro-western cabal, well, that kind of caused issues. Never mind that Ukraine has been sticking it to Russia over USSR-era built gas pipeline to the west to the tune of billions of $$$. Or that Russia's Crimea was annexed to Ukraine during the USSR days but has always understood to be very critical to Russia.
Anyway, I'll leave this here,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzLtF_PxbYw [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday September 17 2014, @03:55PM
But, as these things go, who can blame Russia? The Ukraine is a sitting duck. It's weak, and it's feeble.
I can. What, they're there and vulnerable, so they "have to" fuck with them? No.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @08:36PM
NASA official refuses to answer which company might be first to go up, but will not sacrifice "crew safety". Both Boeing and SpaceX submitted proposals for the "same set of requirements". NASA deflects some questions to reps for Boeing and SpaceX. NASA Administrator Bolden expects there to be other space labs including commercial ones in low Earth orbit.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday September 16 2014, @09:49PM
And it'll be spacex, unless there's some kind of disaster at spacex. Heck even if they do have a disaster if they handle it competently, it'll probably still be first to man rating.
Dragon's got how many flights of live hardware? vs Boeing's got nothing but some aerodynamic tests and lots and lots of powerpoints as of today.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Tuesday September 16 2014, @10:14PM
I'm calling this a victory for SpaceX. Boeing got $4.2 billion. SpaceX got $2.6 billion. El Reg is reporting [theregister.co.uk] that SpaceX is charging about half of what Boeing is per launch.
Boeing got a contract because it is established and "safe", and because NASA requires redundancy. SpaceX got a contract because they can do it better. They may even conduct more successful launches with the smaller share they received. Once it's time for the next contract, Boeing won't do so well (my prediction).
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3) by Random2 on Tuesday September 16 2014, @10:51PM
Indeed; this is a phenomenal opportunity for SpaceX. Since both companies will be flying, if SpaceX can deliver faster, just as safe, and for less, they'll basically have secured themselves a good number of future contracts. After all, there's that 'lowest bidder' requirement for government contractors. Here's to hoping it goes well!
If only I registered 3 users earlier....
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 17 2014, @01:29AM
It's good, sure, but it's pretty sad once you realize that more of your tax dollars are going to Boeing... AGAIN.
What NASA should've done is give both parties an EQUAL amount of budget (say 2-3 bn USD) and see who can deliver.
(Score: 2) by evilviper on Wednesday September 17 2014, @03:54AM
Before you do your victory dance, you might want to wait until a few launches are successful. Sooner or later, someone is going to have the distinction of the first human in history killed by SpaceX, and if it's sooner, they're going to look like jack-asses, and that will be the end of the company.
Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.